willo2

I was just scammed for $500K by Polymarket. I am "willo2", the top holder of YES on "MicroStrategy sells Bitcoin by May 31st". Here's what happened:

@pondermint @PolymarketTrade Thank you Mr Todd, I'm completely in agreement. Polymarket scammed this one.

Polymarket temporal issues between actual Strategy BTC selling and reporting with subsequent followup information are not uncommon. They added no information intentionally and came up with this idealized post facto information limit. See this Straight of Hormuz market extensively defining the data, source and temporal requirement of physical reality and the reporting. It is not hard to do except when you don't want to do it to create a jump ball.

@0xGeeGee Thank you GeeGee. Your support means a lot. Clearly this is a very messed up situation but I'm confident that we can get Polymarket to do the right thing.

Once again, if your solution requires 50 layers of justifications...

@Bkclaims Alright Buddy If there's no legal case then why are you buying claims?

I know this story is getting a lot of traction but these guys have no legal case without market reform - the ToS for international users is pretty clear

Here's my honest opinion on the MSTR market resolution. It will close NO. This is because UMA is forced to respect the rules as written by Polymarket. Polymarket changed the rules, and now the outcome is literally in the rules. Even if UMA voters think that this outcome is ridiculous... they are forced to ratify it. They must abide by the rules that Polymarket wrote. So really... in 5 hours, we simply receive confirmation that UMA is forced to follow centralized Polymarket decisionmaking. Polymarket can change the rules, at any time, for any reason, and UMA are forced to respect it. No voting needed. So is UMA really that independent? Does UMA hold any power whatsoever? Not really. It's puppet decentralization so that Polymarket can shift dispute blame onto a separate entity. This market most likely closes NO in 5 hours. But that doesn't change anything. The scam already occurred. Clearly, the way that this gets solved will not be through Polymarket's internal processes. So let's take it to the next level. In my opinion, Polymarket made a massive mistake here by changing the rules so brazenly. They fucked up... BAD. If you're going to rely on a system that offloads dispute blame to another entity, you shouldn't take it upon yourself to cut that entity out of the resolution process. Now, the blame falls entirely on Polymarket's shoulders. This really isn't a difficult argument to make. Any rational individual who looks at this market can conclude that Polymarket themselves now have the responsibility of this market's resolution. Big mistake, and that's what makes this case very different from prior UMA voting disputes. You can't hide behind UMA now. Polymarket markets are resolved according to a set of pre-defined and stated rules. Polymarket themselves modified these market rules. The clarification materially changed the conditions for a Yes outcome after trading had already occurred. Polymarket's own documentation says clarifications "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question." Clearly, this one did. Polymarket, your time is running out.

@bx1core This, but unironically.

😭😭😭

@0xbobaaa Polymarket chose to maintain artificial precedent over Reality. But we will hold them accountable.

man found free 20% on a market that already resolved aped in $527,000 then learned polymarket voids every bet placed after the news goes public it's all gone. void. zero

@Hodlvault @rb_tweets Exactly. Appreciate your support brother.

Why should I have to check discord and comments to be sure about perfectly clear rules. Which was wether strategy sold any btc before may 31 at a market originally set for July 1.. and then june 1 change those rules.. ain’t no commentary or discord supposed to be needed to understand rules. The question is why are polymarket kols so f ing dilusional? Heck yeah we support @willo2_Poly because he is right!

Feed's full of people supporting Willo2?? My brother in Christ, he aped 650k shares into an uncertain market and is now blaming Polymarket for the outcome. how about checking Discord where traders were discussing precedent, or spending two minutes reading the market comments?

@nikitabier @mert Nikita. You should ban @Polymarket from X. Not only are they notorious for spreading fake news, they are also Confirmed Scammers.

Aggregators are a cancer to social networks; they’re all running on auto-pilot. Instagram killed aggregators in 2022 (e.g., “thefatjewish” and “middeclassfancy”) and it led to an explosion of original content. It is going to work much better for X: Our users are smarter and have a lot more to say—as long as their voices are not drowned out by automated accounts. We are publicly demonetizing the most egregious aggregators and using them as examples, so the rest can start evolving. The endstate of X in a month: we will never pay twice for the same content. We will only reward for net new contributions to the Timeline.

there's been a rise in "news aggregators" given the new algo you should block them the second you know they've posted something false their incentive is to get clicks at any cost, so you will just misinform yourself I've had to reply to 5 already td posting known fake info

According to Polymarket shills, an "uncertain market" is one where you have just received legal confirmation of an event occuring. Polymarket shills writing essays about how Polymarket should not reflect reality Is probably not the win for Polymarket that you think it is

@0xAsta @YazanXBT ??? Both myself and Dino lost money on this Polymarket. We're on the same team.

@willo2_Poly @YazanXBT This ain't the real guy btw, he's just a larper The maker of the site is another guy I forgot his @

I’m a 16 year old high school student. Before this dispute, I was one of the top 10 YES holders in the Polymarket MicroStrategy market. I lost around $35,000 because I trusted the written rule. The rule said YES if MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin by May 31. It did not say the sale had to be publicly disclosed by May 31. That is the issue. If you want to help: Repost this. Tag a journalist. Tag a lawyer. Send this to a crypto researcher. Submit your case if you were affected. polymarketfraud.xyz Silence is what platforms count on. Don’t give them that.

@community_fist @0xDinoCrypto Great point. I hadn't even considered that Polymarket is incentivised to cause these kinds of disputes to occur.

Wow, the MicroStrategy market has already surpassed the previous record holder - Suitgate! Congrats to everyone celebrating 😅 @willo2_Poly, @0xDinoCrypto - we're with you. Keep pushing to the end. To those who keep telling us "sure, Polymarket's rules, communication and resolution mechanisms could be better, but they're not scamming anyone because they have no incentive to do so" - here's direct evidence that Polymarket quite literally benefits from turning otherwise straightforward markets into massive controversies. The longer the dispute, the more attention it gets. The more attention it gets, the more volume it attracts. And the more volume it attracts, the more fees are generated. At some point, it's fair to ask whether these recurring controversies are merely accidental or whether the platform's incentives are not as aligned with users as some people would like to believe.

@morbid19 Thank you brother. We will win against them

@willo2_Poly Gotta fight this so the insiders can't win again. Rooting for you king.

Absolutely diabolical analysis that clings on to the technicality instead of ground truth. The truth is: 1) the market was titled "MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by May 31?" 2) the rules didn't indicate disclosure time 3) and MSTR indeed sold in may By Car's logic, "this is ok because there is precedent and Polymarket needs consistency to operate". Yet, there is precedent where new evidence influenced the outcome of a market that passed its deadline. And this is basically arguing that Polymarket's precedent and operations are more important than the truth. The argument shouldn't be based on obscure technicalities but common sense. The argument shouldn't be based on a platform's convenience but the truth.

If Polymarket's WANTED to scam their users, how would they have acted any differently? Most likely, they would have done exactly what they did on the MSTR market. The purpose of a system is what it does. PolyScam.

@wolfofshelby Exactly.

The Mental Gymnastics required to believe that Polymarket made the right call are ridiculous. Polymarket, fix this.

@elonmusk I got scammed for $500K by Polymarket insiders, and Grok agreed. Trust Grok. x.com/grok/status/20…

Trust Grok

Never let Polymarket forget this image.

Polymarket badge people have one argument. Precedent trumps reality. But Polymarket is not a court of law, and they should not be setting 'precedent'. Because this is how Truth Markets turn into Technicalities Markets.

@cryptojourneyrs Appreciate the support man Polymarket should not treat precedent with priority over facts. They are not a court of law.

The Polymarket cope is absolutely delusional. PAY @willo2_Poly HIS MONEY.

@minebuu Exactly this. There was absolutely nowhere in the rules that said evidence had to be submitted by May 31st. The market was open and trading on June 1st because the 8K had not been released yet. Writing off evidence like this is clear malpractice.

Let’s check a few facts about this market: 1. According to both the API results and what users saw in the mobile app, the end date was set to July 1 (x.com/munchPRMR/stat…) 2. The rules did not specify a concrete final source-data cutoff date. 3. In practice, determining a company’s sales activity through May 31 requires some reporting delay. Traders were generally waiting for Strategy’s 8-K filing to confirm whether any sales had occurred. The fundamental issue is that the rules set by Polymarket were not sufficiently clear. To determine whether sales occurred by May 31, it is reasonable to rely on the company’s official disclosures. If that was not the intended approach, the rules should have explicitly defined a final cutoff date for acceptable data sources. What makes this even more surprising is that similar controversies have occurred before (polymarket.com/ko/event/micro… ), yet the rules were still written in such an ambiguous manner. It is even more unfortunate because the market’s open interest has now grown beyond $100 million, making it practically impossible to resolve the situation in a way that satisfies everyone, whether through a refund or some form of universal settlement.